Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 3 · Question 7

Incorrect. The argument limits itself to discussing the development of wetlands, and it doesn't compare the number of species threatened by that process to other types of development, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
FWC: Developing wetlands endangers species, so we need to to offset development with the creation of new wetlands, thus ensuring that species living there aren't threatened.

FDC: Other countries don't care about wildlife, and we need to do the same to grow, so we have as much of a right to develop our wetlands as others!

Answer Anticipation:
First, let's be sure we're working with the right argument. The stem asks us about the Wildlife Commission's argument—the first one.

There, the argument brings up a problem—the development of the wetlands is threatening species that live there. To address this problem, it suggests offsetting the developed land with new land made elsewhere. From this, the argument concludes that development would pose "no threat" to the species that inhabit the current wetlands.

That's a pretty extreme statement! If there's even the smallest threat due to the development then the argument falls apart. As such the argument is assuming that moving the wetlands to the new area won't adversely affect the species living in the current wetlands. Let's find an answer stating that generically or even ruling out a single potential threat (since every threat has to be ruled out to get to the conclusion).

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the plan will work. If the species won't survive in the replacement habitats then there is a threat from this process and the argument falls apart. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions tend to have answers that match the strength of the conclusion. Here there was a strong conclusion so an answer that is also strong can be correct as we saw with (B).

Incorrect. The argument is about industrialized nations, so it assumes nothing about agricultural ones.

Incorrect. What has happened in the past doesn't determine what will happen now or in the future, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. How severely threatened these animals are compared to others is out of scope of the argument. The argument only requires that these animals be threatened by development and saved by the creation of new habitats.